Published: Dec 02, 2015, 04:00 PM (IST)
Edited: Dec 02, 2015, 04:44 PM (IST)
The Nagpur pitch on which India satirised the famed batting line-up of South Africa, the incumbent No. 1 team in world cricket, has earned ‘poor’ rating from ICC. One must remember here that the one on which Stuart Broad slaughtered Australia (bowled out for 60 in the first session) at Trent Bridge three months ago was considered appropriate for Test cricket. So much for cricket governance and administering the game! ICC has once again proved its ineptness by asking BCCI to reply on why it had prepared a ‘poor’ wicket for the third Test — the first ever occasion when not a single half-century was scored in a Test on Indian soil. FULL CRICKET SCORECARD: India vs South Africa, 3rd Test at Nagpur 2015
It seems either ICC either does not believe in ‘there is always a first’ phenomenon or perhaps they have not heard of it.
The topic of the quality of pitches being prepared for Test cricket is raging around the world, but the entire focus seems to be only on India. The resentment cricket fraternity holds against most successful financial cricket governing nation (BCCI-administered Indian cricket) is not new.
Usually, the social media space remains flooded with anti-BCCI messages — with none realising how much money BCCI gets to cricket while competing with other sports in the world. At present, from cricket fans to the experts and even the governing body of the game, no one is missing the opportunity on having their say.
Or to put it mildly, letting out their prepossessed wrath.
While the cricket fraternity seems to have not noticed the gradual decline in the nature of pitches being prepared in Australia — with traditional bounce and support to fast bowlers being a thing of remote past — its complete focus is on the Indian tracks.There is absolutely no talk on how England and other top teams have been doctoring the wickets since years, making mincemeat of almost everyone that lands their shores. The result can be seen as most series in recent times have swung in the favour of home sides. ALSO READ: Virat Kohli hits back at ICC; highlights string of 50 or less scores in South Africa
Everyone possesses the right to opine and protest on what they deem unsuitable, but not many care to look at both the sides of the coin, or even the complete story. Many have gone on to state the importance of a Test going into the fifth day and criticised the Nagpur wicket accordingly. The recently concluded first-ever day and night Test at Adelaide ended in the final session of Day 3 (around same time the Nagpur Test ended) and the pitch there is hailed by pundits as a “great one”. Sure it was a good but again this was a blatant example of double standards.
Before we get into how grossly wrong ICC is in to ask BCCI about the ‘poor’ Nagpur pitch, let us first take a look at the rules that the cricket governing body has in place to protect Test cricket. This is what ICC Pitch and Outfield Monitoring Process document (released in October 2010) reads:
If any of the following criteria apply, a pitch may be rated “poor”:
a. The pitch offers excessive seam movement at any stage of the match
b. The pitch displays excessive unevenness of bounce for any bowler at any stage of the match
c. The pitch offers excessive assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match
d. The pitch displays little or no seam movement or turn at any stage in the match together with no significant bounce or carry, thereby depriving the bowlers of a fair contest between bat and ball.
If we consider point (a), which says “the pitch offers excessive seam movement at any stage of the match”, the plight of Australian batsmen on Day One of the Trent Bridge Test can be recalled. Broad ran riot in the Australian ranks, who were shot out for an embarrassing 60 in the first innings. Shockingly, the cricket fraternity put greater emphasis on Australia’s incapability rather than a pitch on which every delivery from Broad that morning looked no less than a hand-grenade. Even England were surprised.
But ICC and the cricket fraternity failed to notice the ‘excessive seam movement at any stage’ on this occasion.
This was not the first time Trent Bridge has attracted eyeballs. The pitch prepared for the 2014 Test between England and India was termed ‘poor’, just because only 29 wickets fell across five days with the last wickets from both teams putting up century stands. The previous season, too, the Ashes Test witnessed another last-wicket century stand. If the two cases are compared closely, the clumsiness that prevails in monitoring the pitch stands starkly exposed.
And then, the rationale is unfathomable: 29 wickets across five days are ‘poor’ for Test cricket while 29 wickets in less than three-and-a-half days are absolutely fine!
Point (c) talks about pitches offering ‘excessive assistance to spin bowlers, especially early in the match. First, this topic is contradicting with ICC’s idea of bringing back a balance between the bat and the ball. If the governing body truly believes in striking the right balance, any kind of bowler getting any assistance early on should not be looked at with raised eyebrows. Else, the sport can be allowed to remain heavily tilted towards the favour of the batsmen. Such discussions should be nullified. Many matches in ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 were heavily tilted in favour of batsmen. The bowlers could well have been replaced with bowling machines.
If ICC felt that the Nagpur pitch was ‘poor’ for providing turn and assistance to Indian spinners right from the beginning, it should have noticed that the Trent Bridge pitch three months ago, a dream wicket for seam bowling. Later on, batting became slightly easier, but the damage to visitors was done. Having said that, didn’t the Nagpur wicket provide both sides with equal opportunities to exploit?
Let us also not forget the pitch that England had dished out against India for the Lord’s Test in 2014. On the first day it was impossible to differentiate the 22-yard area that is called pitch from the rest of the field.
ICC’s rating on Nagpur wicket is terribly erroneous on one more count: if the pitch actually favoured spinners more than fast bowlers, none of the men in the latter category should have got any success. But here we have Morne Morkel, who bowled a dream spell in the first innings before hobbling out of the field on Day One, having already taken three wickets. He claimed three more in the second innings as well.
Perhaps ICC’s managers failed to either read the scorecards or did not watch the match.
It is ICC’s duty to maintain sanctity of the sport, but it is its ineptitude that has allowed cricketing powerhouses to have things their way. There is no doubt about the fact that home teams are openly exploiting their visitor’s blemishes by making pitches that are unplayable for the latter.
No concrete step or a word has ever been spoken by the cricket governing body to stop this rapidly spreading malice.
ICC carries greater responsibility than to stand up, randomly rate a pitch ‘poor’, and sit back at its place.
(DevarchitVarma is senior writer with CricketCountry. He can be followed on Twitter @Devarchit)
